Conspiracy-Factualist

Under contract law, a contract is legally null & void if a signiture is acquired by force ( one of the 6/7 key requirements to contract law, signiture has to be voluntary ) that aside, you could always ask the cop who was harmed as it is illegal to solicit money for commercial compensation if no one was harmed, its called attempting to process a fraudulent security, which carries the penalty of a gaol sentence, a cop wont buy into the debate & just enforce his will anyway & will leave it for the magistrate, however it then presents the magistrate with the problem. What is in your favour in respect to that is you have the legal right to confront your accuser. If you were to ask the magistrate who is your accuser & the magistrate was silly enough to say himself & prosecutions then clearly there would a biast adjudication in the court. If the magistrate says the cop then you get to question the cop as to where,how & to what extent precisely was the cop harmed. Being the law is not a living entity & only legislation clearly it can not be harmed, however it could be argued that it was violated ( just an presumption of tatics from magistrate ). Most don't realise that when they sign their John Doe signiture on a doc they are endorsing & agreeing to the terms & conditions of the doc, wether the T&C are listed or not. Your daughter doesn't have a B/C, the B/C pertains to the government securitised corporated entity, its issued by a government agency B/D & M. All the B/C's I have viewed all have a 7-14 day difference to the actual live birth mine inclusive, which could be the time it took government to corporate the name of the sentient being, most would possiblly say the difference is the paperwork turn around time, but each to their own on that.

Occi, did you bother to read my responce post to your enquiry relating to the word advise? It showed the meaning of words with the web page you presented http://www/etymonlin...p?search=advise & the meaning of that word, for instance & I agree if you look up the meaning for the word "advise" it will give you the meaning of it, which is " to give counsel to",& the meaning of the word vise on its own means vise c.1300, "device like a screw or winch for bending a crossbow or catapult," from O.Fr. vis, viz "screw," from L. vitis "vine, tendril of a vine," lit. "that which winds," from base of viere "to bind, twist" (see withy). The meaning "clamping tool with two jaws closed by a screw" is first recorded c.1500. So if you take the two words Ad & vise & make one word advise the meaning is to give counsel to & device like a screw or winch, bind, twist however as I said break the word up or look up the word vice you will get its meaning & the web page also made suggestion or links of words by association I.E. Vice, join the two words & you get advice or ad-vice, vice (1)moral fault, wickedness," c.1300, from O.Fr. vice, from L. vitium "defect, offense, blemish, imperfection," in both physical and moral senses (cf. It. vezzo "usage, entertainment"). the word Ad is simply as it indicates.. to add. You are infact correct in your comprehension of its meaning in common english, but don't think for an instant that the justice system is here to fight for or protect you or play in the same common english comprehension as you, for example of a word & its non common english presentation ( & no visable listing of proof either ) " justice system" ..... Just Us system when you look at it outside of common english comprehension you can see that courts act in that exact manner... Just Us system, or another example.... the itialian word for Police..... Polici or Pol-ici, when you split up the word it sounds like policy = policy enforcer & what are cops? enforcers of corporation law or corporational policy, basically what I am saying is, think outside of the box or the norm, if you think cunningly as they do, you start to see the connection..... heh or not Nobody said, that words don't have a common english meaning, what I said it that it also has another meaning, I also said take a look at rogdog's recent post that has a webpage link & the info on that page has info relating to registration of cars, local council & other interesting info, & on that web page it provides an example of the word understand & its meaning to the courts & courts alone, how you interpret its meaning will not be the same as the courts If you fail to see the connection of words or how words can be changed to have a different meaning, then sadly no one will be able to help you comprehend it, One thing that is worth mentioning is nobody & I mean nobody was born with freeman theory. I used your web page search & another user also said that its legalese "another language" & your still not convinced, nobody is here to convince you of anything stated in the posts here, that is for you & you alone to decide on its authenticity, but people post opinions/theories merely to assist others with a comprehension of how legal games are played within the justice system in this country, Nobody has ever said that their reserach is correct or true or complete or not misleading, most simply research a possibility on the grounds of "what if" & whatever the research turns up, it is then up to the researcher to comprehend how to utilise the info & if it can help their cause in any way or obtain a better comprehension of how to utilise it against facilities, the thing about the freeman theory is that ALL info pertaining to it can only ever be hearsay or opinion or theory as there isn't any actual proof in its existance or its successfulness, some have small wins & others don't win at all, it all comes down to how you conduct yourself accordingly in a facility that is setup in a way to ensure to the best of its ability for you to lose... no matter what the cost. You will only ever be able to utilise what you comprehend to be logical & rational on a legal level & to debate it on their playing field I have attended two court matters pertaining to people who also had the theory on the freeman & have studied it at great length, with the end result that the magistrate simply did not acknowlege it as the establishment can't afford too, so all of the freeman theory can only ever be used to debate one's sovereign position in a court room event. If you are a freeman you are not under the jurisdiction of the justice system the problem is to show with irrefutable proof that you are a freeman & that is the very problem, as they just don't want to acknowlege that, It is a trueism that if you find it difficult to comprehend all the freeman information then it is strongly suggested that you don't use freeman techniques as you can get yourself in a lot of trouble, magistrates find it difficult when dealing with those who have a solid comprehension of law & how it works & those who quote specific areas in law that are being ignored by a magistrate, I.E. denial of due process of law, the magistrate is not the law & is only ever an adjudicator & nothing more S/he cannot have an opinion as it is not within his jurisdiction as a magistrate to do so. I was told earlier by another user that I would have my arse handed to me based upon my knowledge isn't almost encyclopaedic, due to my own reasons I choose not to disproove the comment which would be extremely simple to do, as I feel the "other user" is not what they present themselves to be & agents of that nature are an entity to be weary of. The cops can't comprhend it & don't even try & the magistrate can not allow the cat to get out of the bag. The scam is greater than just are you a freeman or not, it breaks down & destroys their very position of presumed authority & power & it is for that reason that it is extremely hard to win a freeman logical based, theory, opinion or even a well executed legal debate, however I have been shown a very simple way to make it just as hard for them to disproove as much as it is hard to proove one is/can be a freeman, esentially a stalemate. neither them or us wins In one court case where the victim in this instance was told by the magistrate.... " you don't know who you are & therefor I cannot deal with you". The reality of what the magisrate was actually saying is, as a freeman I can't deal with you & I have no jurisdiction over you, being that the "victim" was already incarcerated the magistrate simply allowed the continuation of deprivation of liberty, as the victim refused to consent to the strawman con fantasy, the Victim was thus returned to Arthur Gorrie correctional center until a later date. It was not until a friend of the victim lodged a Hapus Corpus ( not sure on spelling) in Brisbane court, which is a court order to present the body, would of created all sorts of legal ramifications for Beenleigh court & the presiding magistrate dealing with the matter, they let the victim go before the Haepus Corpus came into effect which inturn negated the deprivation of liberty against the victim, & the whole matter was dropped, but not before they managed to detain the victim for 14 days. All in all there is nothing to be apologetic about Occi, if you are unconvinced that is simply for everyone else to accept & for you continue on in your journey in life, nothing in any of the posts is stated to convince anyone of anything, it is simply hypothesis, opinions & theories, it is the end user to believe or not

I wish you all the luck in finding such an entity, RTA (Authority) as far as they are concerned the roads are theirs, & whilst there would be no reason why you could not do your wishful intent, the police don't comprehend the concept & therefore in their eyes as a corporation you would be in violation of the roads traffic act. A freeman group in Melbourne protested for lack of better words not so long ago to which I can only presume to get the truth out there in the public, to which one car had plates not issued by the authority & thus a police officer in an attempt to remove the plate injured their fingers & the presumed registered owner of the car was thus inturn charge with numerous offences one of which was injurying a member of the police force the charge/s were later dropped as the officer for public relations said that it was all a misunderstanding. The only way that I can think of to get around this ever ongoing problem would be to write a letter to the minister for transport supported with a signed affidavit demanding who the true owner of the car is, with all the legal wording ( 7 days to respond with supported affidavit & failure to do so would be accepted as proof positive that you are infact the true owner of the car & thus you are not under any obligation to register your property) all via registered post the whole gambit., to also attempt this you would have to instigate the presumption of god, as government didn't create the world & therefore did not create roads, they have only ever improved the roads/passage ways with various taxes & that inturn makes the roads belong to the people not the government, but have fun trying to get them to concur to that thought This is not legal counsel & requires more research it is only something I have given consideration & hypothesized about. with other like minded people I again agree with Mycot, it is also the presumption of many that when they sign their John Doe for a "Drivers Licence" the perception is that they are endorsing the licence with their signiture, what we as vehilce users are not told that by signing the licence you are actually agreeing to the underlyin contract to the Roads & Traffic Act, & thus we somehow manage to incur demerit points & fines, Under contract law this would make it legally null & void due to failure of full disclosure to the contract.

I agree. I stated in a previous post that the word "register" in Blacks Law Dic edition 1 says, to relinquish title ownership of. & it is to note that the word 'register" is not listed in edition 2, being that BLD is updated to be in accordance with court rulings, it is easy to see why some words or legal deffinitions would be omitted from later editions Also the word "apply" is also referrenced too "beg", may not have seen it in edition 1, but I have seen it listed in a BLD edition.

Certain words hold specific meanings to establishments, for instance as per rogdog's most recent post, the information gave description to the word "understand", the word understand in a court or comming from a magistrate is to stand under, I.E. " do you understand the charge/s against you", if you say yes then you are acknowleging the jurisdiction of the court & magistrate by agreeing to stand under the charge/s, in short jurisdiction by deceit . It is for that reason that I attempt to not use such words because of the different meaning implied, in most instances the certain words are copyrighted by the establishments for their power or pleasure, also it is only by the changing of one letter or changing the way the word is presented. understand/under + stand = stand under advise/ad + vise = ad vice As the page you referred the link to : advise late 13c., avisen "to view, consider," from O.Fr. aviser "deliberate, reflect, consider" (13c.), from avis "opinion" (see advice). Meaning "to give counsel to" is late 14c. Related: Advised; advising vice (1) "moral fault, wickedness," c.1300, from O.Fr. vice, from L. vitium "defect, offense, blemish, imperfection," in both physical and moral senses (cf. It. vezzo "usage, entertainment"). Horace and Aristotle have already spoken to us about the virtues of their forefathers and the vices of their own times, and through the centuries, authors have talked the same way. If all this were true, we would be bears today. [Montesquieu] Vice squad is attested from 1905. Vice anglais "corporal punishment," lit. "the English vice," is attested from 1942, from French.vice (2) "tool for holding," see vise. vise c.1300, "device like a screw or winch for bending a crossbow or catapult," from O.Fr. vis, viz "screw," from L. vitis "vine, tendril of a vine," lit. "that which winds," from base of viere "to bind, twist" (see withy). The meaning "clamping tool with two jaws closed by a screw" is first recorded c.1500. So when you join the dots advise is to ad-vice

LOL a lot of research huh, I percieve you would attend a court, speak all of your "knowlege" & theory & research in a debate that your a freeman and to be as arrogant as a court magistrate, " proove it", And all your hours of research would be meaningless as the magistrate is not interested in your research or your logic or theories, as to quote your comment, onus of proof is upon the claimant. For saying that you have researched freeman techniques you seem quite adept in using copyright corporated government used words to express your opinions. For instance your choice of word... " advise" to mean... ad-vice. Why would you want to ad-vice to your fellow brother or sister? Show me where I said them as evidence? & where I have said. this is what happened & you can use it to get out of jam. Is that not you now twisting what I had actually said with a view to discredit my opinion? If there is a statement/claim that I potentially made without realising it, it would have been by the very few words :" Roman law decrees" & if nothing more so than the word I choose to use " decree" & whilst I now see that you have choosen to be an opportunist & bager me for it, anyone with half a clue would realise that I am not 1000 years old & therefore it is equally obvious that I cannot proove that it was or was not inforce, & neither can you. it was a theory, but alas my theories are irrelevant if they do not coincide with yours. You are entitled to your views/opinions & theories as am I, but you don't see me running around posting active criticisim about other peoples posts now ....... do you. It is up to the end user to either believe/percieve or not of the information that is posted in this forum & yet again I quote the freeman forum statement " NOT TO BE RELIED UPON FOR LEGAL COUNSEL" neither yours or mine. How remarkably arrogant !!.......... YES YOU ARE! In ending say what you will of me & my posts, as I will simply ingore your comments & opinions of me & I don't think this helps anyone watching two people lock horns over a matter of differences of opinion I will simply let it go with the view that we agree to disagree that we cannot work together for a greater cause as clearly you percieve that everything you say is right & any other comment that does not coincide with your views is either irrelevant or incorrect. An honorable man would of said... whilst I comprehend your attempt of information I percieve it to be wrong for these reasons. Not ignite a text war.. congratulations I hope you feel proud.

I'm sorry sheather, I wasn't aware that my opinion or theory would be interpretted as a claim by the likes of you or anyone else for that matter, you have the obligation of choice to research for yourself, you are under no obligation to believe mine or anyone elses "hearsay" I think we would all realise that there would be no way that I would have 1000 year old doctrine proof of my opinion as would anyone else of freeman theory. As for nonsence which is your opinion & you are welcome to it, can you proove or disproove that any other law that has stood longer that is used as a foundation of law today? can you proove that australian law has not continued with modification to a foundation of law from other countries? If you don't believe that then you would be in denial as the foundation of australian law derives from westminster law, which is the only law that Captin Cook had at his disposal at the time of discovering australia. I never "claimed" that Roman law still stands today, but merely opinionated that it is a foundation of law, as back then Roman law was most likely to be the only law. As for the information to the vast majority is worse than useless, clearly you have yet to defend yourself in a court using the freeman techniques because if you had, then you would know that it is an extremely hard battle to attempt to convince the magistrate that you are nothing more than a freeman, because they wont acknowlege the freeman, as it is there job to do nothing more than fleece corporated strawman of money. I never asked you or any other sentient man/woman to persue anything I have opinionated to a serious degree, its not my obligation nor desire to enforce my research or theory upon anyone else, any of my comments NOT CLAIMS have only ever been from the point to consider other possibilities of other avenues & how foolish of you or anyone else who would use any information in the freeman posts as a point for legal counsel. instead of feeding off of everyone elses research or theory to rely on to bail your ass out of a problem, why not research yourself, because anyone elses research would never have been a guarantee to get you out of a fix & equally get you thrown in GAOL & you would be a fool to go into a court using someone elses research or theory to get you out of a problem. It is why the freeman forum clearly states "NOT TO BE RELIED UPON FOR LEGAL COUNSEL" I think that this pretty much concludes both our viewpoints & opinions.

I came across some files on the net that came about from a court case I was not involved with, but had the luck to be in the audience of, the case in question is irrelivant, but a comment the magistrate made, gave me the curiosity to search, this matter before the courts was held in Queensland. The magistrate said: I can assure you we are not operating under either of those two laws. The files are an insight to what state government is doing in Queensland & the same in other states as well.

That would depend on what your interpretation of who the crown is. The "crown" is not as most would commonly think, most interpret that the crown is the monarch, the crown is actually the "IMF" or to be more precise "Rothschild". The insight to this is a movie called "the money masters". In short it depicts how rothschild gained his wealth, by todays standard... insider trading, Rothschild had a messenger (for lack of better words) at the fringes of the battle ground of the war between the british & Napoleon at the battle of waterloo, it was this messenger who reported back to rothschild a full 24 hours before the end of the war & informed rothschild that Napoleon was going to be defeated, being that rothschild was wheeling & dealing in the british stock exchange, & most looked to rothschild for hints of what to buy & what not, rothschild deliberately had a look of dismay on his face & all around him presumed that Napoleon had won the war & the stock exhcnage plumetted, rothschild was then able to buy up England for pennies on the pound. By the time the truth of Napoleon's defeat became news, rothschild had already purchased a large quanity of England. being that rothschild had 5 sons all of which were taught the art of banking, rothschild senior sent his sons to different parts of europe & abroad to broaden his financial power & so we have the IMF, the IMF is the establishment that hold our true B/C's, & thus is the true crown. It happened like this: we we born, once that happened our parents were sent ..." pls register the birth of your child doc", so our parent unknowingly to the truth behind the doc filled them out as per requested. That doc was then sent to the IMF along by the government along with a request for a loan of a large sum of money, the IMF said ok, what do you offer as collateral, the government offered our entire working life, being that our parents filled out the register birth doc, what our parents weren't told was by doing so they are abandoning their children, under admiralty law , we as children were then claimed by salvage rights, so we are actually chattle of the government, being that the government can't enslave a "freeman" they had to make a corporation out of the live birth & hence the birth extract which pertains to the corporated entity not freeman entity, so our income tax pays nothing more than the interest of the governments loan & all government issued licences letters & so on are capitalised in the name. Roman law which stood for 1000 years decrees, a name with all capitals is a slave with no rights, a name with first initials in capitals is a slave with rights & we as freemen were never issued with any form of identity except from an establishment, it stands to reason why you never see documents with all lower case letters in a name, because a name with all lower case is truely a freeman.

Hi Rog I'm courious, did your letter work? There is another side to this that maybe you have not yet looked into, If we are to "understand" ( I hate using the word understand, because if you switch the word around it has a different meaning I.E. understand... to stand under ) law in which to conduct ourselves accordingly, it makes sence to use "their" law against them, Black's law dictionary edition 1 states, REGISTRATION: to relinquish title ownership of, & the courts can't ignore it as it is the foundation for their rulings, it is also why they have omitted some other words in later editions so that they can't be caught by their own rulings or wording deffinitions. So your means of tranport is a car to which by legislative law must be registered in order to use on the roads. If you have relinquished title ownership of the car then the car is not legally your property, but you do however hold a right to use licence, the comment possession is 9/10th's of the law is not uncommon, but most don't comprehend its reality, one never hears the term possession is 10/10th's of the law & the reason is, the 9/10th's possession belongs to the establishments we the ppl have the 1/10th & that is simply put, a right to use licence. So if you incurred an infringment you could simply send it back with an attached doc stating thank you for bringing this to my attention, please forward it on to the rightful owner. It may sound like hogwash, but I can say from first hand personal knowlege we do not own our vehicles, I had a car unreg for 2 yrs, to test a theory I had, I made some ph calls, first to the local police station where I live in QLD & asked them who was the rightful owner of said car, I was informed that they didn't know & "they" teh police only know of who the registered owner is & that I would have to ring the RTA, so I did & asked the same question, I wasn't suprised I was informed that the RTA didn't know who the rightful owner is, only to whom it was registered to & that i would have to ring the police, to which I explained to them that I had already done so & was told by the police to ring the RTA, so here we have 2 government agencies who deal with motor vehicle registrations, 1 to register the other to track the user & neither of them can inform as to who is teh rightful owner is. So the reality is we don't own what we think are our cars we only have the right to use them the establishment owns the cars by the way of registration ( black's law ) & therefor in theory you could send the infringement back & demand it be forwarded to the rightful owner of the car for their ability to deal with the matter, the key here is that you are the end user not the owner you are not required by any law to pay someone elses bill, it doesn't mean you can rack up huge infringements & expect the establishments to pay as they will just cancel their issued licence, which isn't yours either, thats the right to use licence, the right to drive & the right to dive a motor vehicle on the roads. have fun CF

Greetings all, I would like to offer my apologies now if any of my future post offends anyone as it is not my intention. The problem with all this is is simply put that there is no opt out avenue, the establishments don't want us to be free as they cannot afford it, if you look closely at the whole system, in every department, we have been slowly steered away from a conscious right to say no or to decline any offer, ( auto contract ) or its subsitute no acceptance no rewards, for instance, if welfare is suppose to be an aid in times of hardship, how far does one get if they don't agree to all terms & conditions? I have read nearly all the posts in this particular forum relating to the freeman & whilst I see some valid points, I also see some points not mentioned, I have noticed a lot of the freeman info has come from over-seas, which whilst it is appealing it wont work here for different reasons. Forget everything you have been educated in because it simply is some one elses truth, for instance, religion, there is absolutely no proof or callaboration between the enity known as god & the bible in short, nobody is around today who was around back then to confirm this, that & something else happened, The freeman theory comes from passages from the bible, which sadly the heavenly father, god, creator, call it what you will & religion has been fused together, & no I'm not a religious nut, passages within the bible depict that all god's children you, me, them have the god given right to traverse his lands unharassed & unhindered as he intended.... clearly that is not what we currently have. Any form of I.d documentation has been issued from an establishment, the famed birth cert is the creation of the strawman the government securitised corporated entity. its not a transcript of a live birth, but a transcript of another creation. Not being a native of Oz my BC states at the bottom of it....... warning: A certificate is not evidence of identity ( caution there are offences relating to falsifying or altering a certificate and using or possessing a false certificate... followed by, crown copyright ), so I ask you, if my alleged BC does not pertain to me, then why do I have it & what is its purpose, clearly being that it is issued from a government department: births, deaths registration act 1953, clearly I would be in possession of a fraudulent document........ its my corporation, made on my behalf by the establishment at the time my parents registered my live birth ( blacks law dictionary edition 1 states: REGISTRATION: to relinquish title ownership of ), & hence the strawman/freeman scam, the problem with this is our parents didn't know what they were doing, there was no full disclosure of the alleged contract, afterall if our parents knew that by registrating a birth & inturn abandoning their children, would they have registered the birth??? not likely. The whole process is fraudulent The only way I can see a way around the whole scam & be truely free would be to take the Ghandi approach which would be civil disobedience, but in todays society that carries repocussions.... because they simply don't want us to be free, they need us to pay off their debt, loans taken out against our live births, the sole reason for income tax is to simply pay off their incurred debt, to which the tax paid only ever pays the interest & will never ever pay off the capital......... the threat is authority at the point of a gun, they use the fear of it to make us compliant. Its why alleged cults are always dealt with, because the biggest army there can ever be is a civil army, there is not enough police or military might to stop the force of 23 million ppl in Oz, joining arms for the common good of humanity ( giving the possibility of 2 million in Oz for police & military alike ). Waco Texas was a classic example of that, the FBI went in claiming it was a cult, claiming that children were being messed with & so on, the reality was as a small community of ppl wanting to "opt out" of the systemic scam & that above all else is dangerious for government, because ppl tend to be more acceptable to following than leading & there you have a small civil army starting to build, so the FBI makes absurd comments, gets the nod to go in & in short the Waco freeman community was wiped out, all because they defended their beliefs to be free, to their advantage the Waco freeman community had the constitution to bare arm against all attacks foreign & domestic, hence the shootout & the enforcement of authority at the point of a gun, FBI bared arm & so did the freeman community & the FBI brought in more arms, now you start to see how the Port Arthur event happened, the establishments work in the realm of cause & effect, create the cause to obtain the effect, most don't know this, but after speaking to a few Ex V-V's, one in particular comes to mind who stated from other military comrades or contacts, that Port Arthur was a black ops event, at the time there was only 7 ppl in the world with the shooting ability to disable a vehicle with a gun, it was one of the things that happened in the PA event that was never mentioned to the public, think about it rationally Martin Bryant was not a shooter by any means, never fired a gun apparently, which rings the point of some discharges & not hit a thing, but then somehow executes 12 perfect 1 shot kills, also what was not mentioned was how two police officers who were at the premises looking to purchase lunch, called in what they had seen & was told to stand down. Now ask yourself if the police moto is to serve & protect, why were the 2 officers told to stand down? End result, create a scenario to instigate public outcry that then legislates what is now known as gun control & the civilian army now cannot defend its right to be free or resist enforcement, it is a trueism that only criminals have guns & that rings true for legit crims & the police & military. if you want to be able to deal with courts, you first have to comprehend that police have no authority over you, authority only relates to the corporation this includes courts & any form of presumed authority, another passage from the bible states all men are created equal as god had intended, so uness you bestowed power of authority to someone else over you which would be unlikely, then everyone is an equal to you, cops can't fathom that thought process so there is really no point in arguing that point with them, you have to remember cops have been lied to as well in order for them to do their job, but the easiest way to beat a court issue is to simply attend & when your name is called, you stand up & demand the magistrate shows you & the alleged name( your strawman ) is 1 in the same & he can't without exposing the scam, he could however continue to demand a name. Being that all our identity is issued by the establishments, I can see no legal reason why we wouldn't just creat our own identity documentation, however I can see that the establishment will simply make a corporation out of that name as well, for instance: John of the family Doe "living breathing sentient man" Born: 1970 Address: irrelivant Keep in mind, the BC is a fraudlent doc as would be any ID one could be compelled to make as the establishments would not view it as legal as they didn't create it, but there's nothing saying you can't do it & it just proposes a different arguement. My 2 cents worth & apologies for its length Take care CF